Google’s Attack On Guest Blogging Reignites Irrational Link Removal Craze

    March 24, 2014
    Chris Crum
    Comments are off for this post.

Remember the days when you could build some nice solid links by writing guest posts on other people’s blogs and publications? Well, it’s entirely possible that those days are still here, but Google is freaking people out once again in its efforts to crack down on so-called webspam.

Have you written guest blog posts in the past? Are you worried about links from those coming back to haunt you? Let us know in the comments.

Google says it’s taking action on guest blogging, and people that have written completely legitimate guest posts are seeking the removal of links to their sites that may have actually been helping them. In some cases, it’s hard to see why they would possibly hurt.

As you may know, Google’s Matt Cutts announced last week that Google took action on a “large guest blog network”.

That network turned out to be Ann Smarty’s MyBlogGuest. A lot of people didn’t think her site should have been penalized, but even that is somewhat beside the point. It is a site dedicated to matching guest bloggers with blogs as an “Internet marketing tactic”.

When Cutts announced that they’d taken action, he referenced a blog post he made earlier this year in which he proclaimed guesting blogging for SEO “done”.

After he first made the post, he added an update, which lightened the guidance to a much less aggressive picture than was first painted (or at least that’s the way people took it in the beginning). He wrote:

There are still many good reasons to do some guest blogging (exposure, branding, increased reach, community, etc.). Those reasons existed way before Google and they’ll continue into the future. And there are absolutely some fantastic, high-quality guest bloggers out there. I’m also not talking about multi-author blogs. High-quality multi-author blogs like Boing Boing have been around since the beginning of the web, and they can be compelling, wonderful, and useful.

I just want to highlight that a bunch of low-quality or spam sites have latched on to “guest blogging” as their link-building strategy, and we see a lot more spammy attempts to do guest blogging. Because of that, I’d recommend skepticism (or at least caution) when someone reaches out and offers you a guest blog article.

Okay, fair enough.

But now we’re seeing people who have written high quality content as guest posts request to have their links removed. Very shortly after last week’s announcement, we had multiple emails from guest authors of the past looking to have the links in their author bios removed.

I’m not going to share their names, but these were not low-quality, or in any way spammy articles. If they had been, we wouldn’t have accepted them. One in particular was about a very specific piece of legislation that was a particularly hot topic at the time it was written, and brought interesting insight to the discussion. That’s why we published it. We made the “editorial choice” (to use a phrase Cutts often uses) to put these articles on our site. The articles weren’t published elsewhere (it was a requirement that they be unique to our site in the first place), so it wasn’t like they were all over the web as duplicate content.

In fact, when asked, one of the writers told us that Google had simply told them they had taken a manual action against their site after detecting “some artificial links”. Our article in question wasn’t mentioned in any way in Google’s messaging, but this person told us they were deciding themselves to have all keyword-oriented links pointing to their site removed.

Are these specific links hurting these sites? Probably not, but who can really say (other than Google) when Google decides that something looks spammy. I can’t imagine what would have looked spammy about these particular links. They were pretty standard author bio stuff like you see on just about every article on every site on the Internet, but Google creates this fear, and people go out of their way to remove legitimate links as a precautionary measure. Let’s hope that these links weren’t really working in the site’s favor. Then they’re just going to hurt themselves more by losing PageRank value.

Keep in mind, Links are still a particularly important signal in search quality. Cutts said this himself very recently. One could argue that a link in an author bio shouldn’t carry as much weight as a link referencing some other piece of information within an article itself, but that really depends on the situation, doesn’t it? A link to the author’s website gives you context about who’s writing the article, which can lend credibility. If someone’s writing an article about a topic, it’s nice to see that they have experience with it. On the flipside, how often do you see generic words in articles linked for no apparent reason? It happens all the time. Is someone linking the word Wikipedia to the Wikipedia site, for example, some big signal of relevance for the Wikipedia homepage? Probably not, unless the article is specifically about Wikipedia and or its homepage. Everyone knows what Wikipedia is. That link isn’t adding any value. Not as much value as the link in the author’s bio, which is showing you more about who you’re reading. If the link is to a specific Wikipedia article that’s relevant to what the author is talking about, then that’s a different story.

I don’t know how Google was viewing the specific links in question with regards to these guest articles. I don’t see any reason for them to look unfavorable, but Google isn’t always the easiest thing to understand, and plenty of people have felt illegitimately burned by Google’s wrath in the past. Maybe it is smart for these people to get rid of the links. It’s hard to say.

But it’s likely that this is only the latest in Google spreading a similar kind of link hysteria to what we’ve seen in recent years when people were doing things like trying to get links removed from StumbleUpon. Or when they were afraid to link to their own sites.

Google has a lot of power on the web, but never forget that Google isn’t the web itself. It’s still links that connect the web’s pages.

Should people look to have links from legitimate guest blog posts removed? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Image via YouTube

  • http://mikecurleymusic.com/ Michael David Curley

    The issue with that from a top firm like Google, is the interesting growth of valid good items like this. In effect is a guest blog, and addition to the cause, the sat round at a dinner party forward, lean back down and tackle some peas. No one expects a fight three years later at a party. “Of course ladies, he was the prat, that left that link for us all”. “Excuse me”?

    I don’t believe SEM outside of what the individual does them self for dot com work, will ever be as important, as their inclusion on tech savvy boards.

    Re-shared then through a non celebrity social networks, at least for myself, is a fine line of evening’s entertainment. I wrote an article today, certainly not changing the world beyond the happy, so take on the traffic as the wind blows.

    If that’s not the case, more people perhaps should take advantage.

    Picture, profile, share. You don’t get a x and not ever have an opinion about y.

    Your not re-tweeting someone’s else’s hand here, but your helping on the thoughts, and applying a touch to your own brand. Its not enough to be owned by one thing, unless they pay, rocket science wages, or stipulate its work for hire.

    Oh I can’t do it on there mate.

    These as stated, are really just passing general comments, beyond the normal realms of yore.

    Bar, airport lounge, best practice at work, always extend the network, its exactly how you do beat the link.

  • Michael Kohlfürst

    I understand, that Link Spamming via Guest Blogs is a problem for Google. But in my opinion it is not the right way frighten ALL the people. The first ones which will stop Guest Blogging are the good guys, having the real and best content, the ones which had something to say, which wanted their brand to be more famous – they created the best content to shine in a light.

    Why doesn’t Google in doubt count Links to a site that said via Maps Authorization – I am a real Business with real people (Author + Publisher).

    • Bob Teal

      I can buy likes too but I will not. Im sure some spammers are.

  • RogelioSickOfThis

    Google has gotten entirely out of control for years, and this trend is just getting worse and worse. “We are the law makers, the police, the judge, and the jury” sayeth Sir Google.

    The web used to have its own voice, a freedom and an ‘openess’ to it. Now, all we are doing is running around in fear of what Google might do or think. We, this community, is building Google+…any of your non-Internet friends registered there? No, they aren’t. But it is the only place where we can safely create white hat links nowadays.

    I say let’s forget them, and all start using Bing…and believe me, I am no MS plant, I just can’t stand this absolute arrogance anymore. And, when does the FTC get involved? When is too much power too much power? Goole, my friends, has too much power…this is absolutely ridiculous, and we are all just “taking it” with nothing to say or do other than “yes, Sir, may I please have another”.

    • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

      There is a change happening, and you can see it out there and on comments sections like this. Webmasters are turning away from Google, and this will only increase every time it does something to damage the businesses and incomes of potentially another few hundred thousand people.

      The only problem we have is translating and communicating this message to surfers. What we really need is an active movement to encourage our own site visitors to use other search engines.

      We all know that Google has far too much power and control, now we have to work to fix that. It might be worth webmasters creating banners and buttons, with pages explaining the issues and dangers, to encourage site visitors to switch their search engine.

      • RogelioSickOfThis

        Not a terrible thought. I do have a “union guy” mentality, but I am a strategist. Think Google+ is starting to look like a website? How long before Google starts telling business owners not to bother with their own sites, that if they turn those off and use Google+, that they’ll do better on search?

        I have, for the most part, stopped paying attention to Google. I think what they are doing is bad for business, and that they are a monopoly, and the only people who can do anything is the FTC. The government can’t continue to let them have monopolistic market power as police, judge, jury, and law maker. My staff writes quality content for our clients’ websites and blogs, because they aren’t “well-written” folks, nor do they have the time or patience for all of this…we promote legitimate small businesses.

        When I do a sales pitch, and share my screen with a user, I show them Bing and Yahoo results, and the client inevitably will ask about Google. I explain my disdain, and then laugh and say “well, they don’t really ask my opinion when they make these lame-as* decisions”. I tell them Bing actually has better results, and that’s the little I think I can do.

        • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

          I agree with everything you’ve said, but I don’t think any government is willing to enforce any anti-monopoly legislation in response to Google, primarily because our government agencies can get so much information from Google’s systems (either by permission or otherwise) that could be affected if they worked to split it up.

          For instance, as 80% of the public uses Google, our gov agencies only need to get into that system to monitor the majority of the population. Same with Facebook and Twitter. If Google’s dominance fades, they’ll have spend more time and resources to gain access to all the competitors out there too.

          So, really, it’s in our governments’ interest to support a hegemony.

          And I also agree with your opinions in comparison to Bing. Just this morning I saw that several pages were appearing in Bing in the top five results, while they were appearing on page 4 of Google for the same term. As I’ve said to others in these comments before, it makes more sense to pay attention to, and work with, Bing, than fret about appearing on page 1 of Google.

          I can spend a month creating the perfect group of pages, and hope to get page 2 on Google for ten hits a day, or spend a week creating good content and get first place in Bing, gaining 20 hits a day. Depending on your ambitions, it makes more sense to work with the SE actually sending you the most hits for your top content.

          People seem to miss the fact that Google having 80% of the search market makes no difference to us as webmasters, what matters is how many click through and actually buy, or use our services. I don’t care if Google has 99% of the search engine market when Bing sends me more traffic through higher placement.

    • John Beagle

      While I don’t agree with all of Google’s tactics to improve search results, they are a private business. As such Google has the right to do as they please with their product.

      If you don’t like a product, don’t use it.

      • http://ayeja.com/ Juliana Melgar

        That’s like saying if you don’t want a traffic ticket, don’t drive.

    • http://www.mysenioradvisorsgroup.com/ Charles

      My thoughts exactly. I am changing my search engine to BING immediately. I hope someone here creates a generic banner and brief outline of why users should switch I will gladly send it to everyone I know. I’d place it on my site but then google would penalize for that and my business would cease to exist.

      The only thing I can add is I wish Cris Crum would write more articles on other search providers. Maybe some more press for the competition would level the playing field. Goodbye Google

  • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

    What did we expect to happen? Google attacked potentially thousands of genuine unique-content writers and webmasters out there, and for nothing more than an assumed association to a site it decided was worth attacking.

    There are so many genuine writers who used that service who have now been attacked by Google, even though they provided or published only unique and good quality content.

    Google has threatened the entire webmaster community yet again, attacking a method of genuine site promotion and genuine cross-marketing, in an effort to boost its own advertising revenues.

    It has not gone unnoticed by the vast majority that EVERYTHING Google does leads to the same goal – forcing small businesses to spend money advertising in competition with massive corporations with endless budgets.

    When people finally wake up to the fact that Google is just another corporation, where profits come first over morality and ethics, it might be too late.

  • http://doodleddoes.com/ Doodled

    I’ve certainly seen histeria if you step outside the world of SEO where most bloggers live and many have not even heard of Matt Cutts things go on and there is none of this “Crikey, let’s nofollow all the links in our guest blog posts” because there doesn’t need to be.

    Write a guest blog where there is only one link and that link is “beds” and it goes to a page on an eCommerce site selling beds. Then write 100 more guest blogs all similar and all with the same link to the same page and your going to get hit.

    Unfortunately that was what MBG had become. A market place for content farms and content writers thinking that ezine didn’t count because it was an article site but these other “blogs” counted because they were called blogs instead.

    I don’t see any need for genuine bloggers hosting genuine guest bloggers to panic. Spammy guest blogging is obvious to Google but alot of people are crying foul for having been caught red handed.

    • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

      “Write a guest blog where there is only one link and that link is
      “beds” and it goes to a page on an eCommerce site selling beds. Then
      write 100 more guest blogs all similar and all with the same link to the
      same page and your going to get hit.”

      This is just the point, many of those using that service were not doing that. There are thousands of users actually using the site to share their knowledge, gain good content for their sites and encourage traditional marketing through cross-promotion.

      Google paid no attention to this and – just as you have done – branded them all as black-hat without actually looking at the quality of the content, the uniqueness of the articles, or the lack of “trade” between participants. Google didn’t just harm the main site making the matches between writer and publisher, Google devalued and attacked every site involved with them, regardless of their intentions.

      • http://doodleddoes.com/ Doodled

        Google didn’t. Every example I’ve been shown so far where a site received a penalty was spamming. All MBG did was give Google a huge database of potential spammers to check and then the casualties mounted up.

        I seem to remember (tell me if I’m wrong) that you quoted your bloketoys . co . uk as one of four sites that were hit. So your site has over 67,000 backlinks from 117 domains on 80 IP addresses. 35,000 links were site wide and 7,400 were from images. Your anchor text is just way too obvious – 43% off all your links are the phrase “mens *** toys”.

        The list of reasons your website has been penalized (or should be penalized if I’ve got it wrong) goes on in an ever more unnatural way.

        • http://myblogguest.com/blog/ Ann Smarty

          Oh come on! So we are now picking up on each other?

          Now, just because you didn’t meet good people on MBG you are now labeling the whole community? Are there no spammers on Facebook? I bet you, there are more spammers than normal people. No spammers on Twitter? Yes, spammers are the HUGE problem of the whole Internet and we were doing our best to fight it.

          Is this the reason to attack genuine websites and communities? Google can have our brand name, they can throw us out of their Index (they didn’t) but attacking people inside the community?? Are you seriously supporting that?

          • http://doodleddoes.com/ Doodled

            Not supporting it in any way Ann and totally agree that there are other places full of spammers – just take a look at BLU. Have already written that MBG’s hit was very much a publicity stunt by Google in its goal to stamp out spammy guest blogging.

            What I’m saying is MBG provided Google with a perfect list of potential spammers. I have websites registered on your site – none have been touched by Google – so it didn’t hand out the bans wholesale. Just used your database as a starting point and made alot of noise about it. Is that morally right? Probably not. Was it a smart business move? Yes.

            I have yet to see (so put me right) a “genuine” website that was hit because of MBG.

            I’ve never said MBG was wholesale spamsville. Just that there was a hell of a lot of it going on in there making it very hard to find genuine guest bloggers – but I’m sure they are there.

          • http://myblogguest.com/blog/ Ann Smarty
          • http://doodleddoes.com/ Doodled

            My last reply got audited away. Assume it was because I posted a link?

            Here it is again without the link:

            Not sure what this is proving? Here we have a guy who has a blog about SEO copywriting and yet there are dozens of posts with unnatural,keyword rich outbound links on them. In the link you posted, check the comments section for the person who gives a number of examples via the waybackwhen machine.

            It’s just not how normal bloggers do links and Google has a manual ban specifically for unnatural outbound links.

            That’s not a genuine website being hit.

            I won’t be changing any links on my websites or those of my clients
            to nofollow because they are naturally placed, not keyword rich and
            genuine citations. Lets see if that is “more fool me” 😉

          • http://myblogguest.com/blog/ Ann Smarty

            Dozens? There are hardly three guest posts. And who decides whether SEO blog can/cannot post articles on social media? And these are OLD guest articles (at least one year old). So suddenly Google decides it’s bad, goes back to times when it wasn’t uncool and penalizes them?

            Here’s another one: socialmediasun.com
            Disclaimer: I nofollowed links because contributors got scared (not my own choice) but it was slapped before that, naturally

          • http://doodleddoes.com/ Doodled

            This, I believe, is where many are getting confused because they are only thinking about guest posts.

            Doc Sheldon’s blog contained dozens of posts with unnatural outbound links. It doesn’t matter if they are his posts or guest posts, just that there are lots of posts like that.

            But because all the buzz at the moment is about guest blogging people are assuming this ban is to do with guest blogs only … it’s not.

            And yes, I agree with you. There was a time when Google told us to put the keywords in the links and now it has completely changed its mind and this positive has now become an offence.

            The thing is most real bloggers outside SEO never new the first bit of advice so didn’t do keyword rich linking. Hence they didn’t have to “undo” when Google changed the goal posts – which I accept and agree was unfair and hypocritical but there you go. They told us to list in directories once!

            socialmediasun . com? What was the ban? 26% of pages that have a link to the site contain the phrase “best social media blogs”.

            As far as the site itself I’ve only had a quick look but the post “Mindboggling social media trends ..” is written how I believe a post should be while “Are you engaging clients with Great …” is unnatural because it contains only one link and it is keyword rich.

            However without spending time to dig around how it did look (as many sites have scrambled to sort things out in the last few days) I can’t go any further…

            And needless to say with all the noise this issue has thrown up I’m pretty short of time. But I’ve been helping people clean up their blogs for over 18 months now (editing links that were too keyword rich) because the writing really has been on the wall.

          • http://myblogguest.com/blog/ Ann Smarty

            Just a note: socialmediasun was hit for OUTbound links, so your note about inbound links is irrelevant..

            And I fail to see any exact-match anchor text on “Mindboggling social media trends” page either…

          • http://doodleddoes.com/ Doodled

            But … to end this off … doesn’t anyone realise
            that the real winner in all of this is MyBlogGuest?

            I’ve written a piece “Spam, ban, thank you Ma’am” (you can Google it up but it diverts to “Scam, ban, thank you ma’am” so you’ll need to divert yourself back).

            It looks at how big brand names have used Google manual penalties to their advantage.

            Once MBG cleans up its backlink profile (which Google claims was the reason for that penalty), introduces some stricter policing to get rid of the spammers and gets a reconsideration request accepted by Google they
            are more than home free.

            The buzz this story has generated means the site has a monumentally improved backlink profile that would have taken a month of Sundays to achieve … just as
            InterFlora and Rap Genius did before it.

            Not saying it was planned, just saying MBG will, in the long term, be the winner!

          • http://myblogguest.com/blog/ Ann Smarty

            I Binged it :)

  • Eddie

    Google shout “JUMP” and everyone asks “How high?”.
    It’s about time people started looking at alternative ways to drive traffic. Relying on Google’s organic search results is not a good way to build your business these days as many have discovered to their cost.

  • joe hill

    I guess Matt is ready for a psychiatrist session on paranoia. Unbelievable what this guy constructs together in his upper region.

  • http://113tidbits.com/ tony greene

    Maybe if there was a “hit-list” of sites that were borderline, to the most blatant there wouldn’t be so much confusion.

  • http://gastricbandfrance.co.uk/ geofflord

    Yeah yeah yeah. Matt Cutts is at it yet agian…when is someone gonna shut this guy up !! he has done more damage to googles reputation than anyother individual and yet the powers that be at google keep on swallowing his demonistic attitude to anyone who dares post a link somewhere he (Mat Cutts) doesn’t approve of !! Leave us alone Mat and go play in a minefield somewhere and leave us “normal” guys alone for a while !!

  • http://www.greatfamilyvacationdestinations.com/ Gerri Jensen

    Absolutely irrational. people want to remove nofollow links even, which are relevant and in quality posts!

  • Phil Lanuto

    There is good reason for hysteria. I’ll tell you why. My site was given a manual penalty for suspicious inbound links. We cleaned up a lot of spammy looking ones by contacting webmasters and then submitted a reconsideration request. We were denied and Google sent back a sample of problematic links. Several of the examples were legitimate organic links from sites that had added us as a resource. Google may have daunting algorithms but they have gone amock and they are now penalizing legit as well as illegit links. The web is too complex for even Google to accurately assess every single link situation and because they are erring on the side of penalizing sites, even a legit link can become a problem.

    The strange thing is that I don’t find Google’s results to be any better. If anything, I think the quality has declined over the past couple of years. So, unless you have a link from the WSJ or NY Times, it is suspect. And even those links may have problems.

  • Paul

    You have a problem!


  • http://blog4bitcoin.club Robert Lefebure

    Has anyone except me ever considered how ludicrous a proposition it is that Google can somehow rank hundreds of millions of websites? When a search term yields 600 million results what possible inkling can Google have that site #300 million is “better” than site 300 million and 1? The whole idea is preposterous. Nearly all of the ones clamouring at me to have their link removed (that they or their SEO added themselves) aren’t listed anywhere near the top serp page for their category anyway. Google likes to see people jump through hoops because, since they did indeed detect the link, they can merely ignore it and remain quiet about it. I added a Googlebot nofollow tag but they still come in and index anyway. The steal my bandwidth and then have the nerve to call me “evil”.

    • http://doodleddoes.com/ Doodled

      “nofollow” does not mean “noindex”. A “nofollow” on the link does not mean a bot won’t go through the link to see what is on the other side. Only that it will not pass any link juice through the link.

  • Bob Teal

    Google is betting you will all run out and buy Google glasses when they are available and pay twice or 3 times what a smart phone costs and they are most likely correct. Most people will wait in line for the devices what ever the cost. Sad state of affairs while the other half of the country is unemployed or disabled.

  • Guest

    I take issue with the title of this article “Google’s Attack On Guest Blogging Reignites Irrational Link Removal Craze”. The link removal activity that is happening across the web at a staggering rate is entirely rational, driven Google’s totally irrational frenzy to blitz low content sites. I am sure I am not the only one in thinking that Google’s strategy is crass, if not fundamentally flawed, and is likely to cause far more harm than good. If I had multiple links to my sites from other sites I would be busy getting these removed right now, because it is now patently obvious that Google not only lacks the ability to differentiate between good and bad links but simply no longer cares. Google has become a psychotic, single-minded killing machine, it’s objective: to wreck the internet as we know it. We should be afraid but it is a problem of our own creation. We have given Google too much power and now we can hardly be surprised at the damage caused by the most powerful organisation on the planet when it goes totally AWOL. It’s over folks. The internet is dead. It was fun whilst it lasted but now the party is over.

  • Paul Harvie

    When the dictator of the interweb changes rules in the best interest of the user, I have to ask myself… Has the User asked Google to police the Internet? I believe that search bots, and Google Bots and Search engine algorithms are necessary and I believe it is important to try and place relevant sites at the top of searches.

    I do a lot of random searching on line on various topics, some of which I blog about and others that are completely unrelated. The majority of the time after all of Googles “improving of user experiences”, I personally am still finding a lot of spam, irrelevancy, and garbage on page one of Google…

    The reality is; Google puts on page one what Google wants to put on page one.. I have never had a manual spam action taken against my website, and I have not been openly penalized by Google. Despite my efforts of original and unique, and what I feel to be valuable content, (especially in comparison to the garbage I do find), my search rankings have been growing very slowly.

    Maybe I am missing something in my blog, but the rules and instructions are so specifically vague that it allows for the discretion of Google in the final decision of what is and what isn’t spam.

  • https://plus.google.com/+AnaHoffman/ Ana Hoffman

    It’s pretty funny and erroneous: as I read this post, I scroll to the bottom to see all the comments and noticed an ad for a company to distribute your site to 450 search engines and directories…

    By the way, Gerald Weber, a team member at MyBlogGuest, has published an open letter to Matt Cutts in conjunction with the penalty (sorry for the link dropping, but I think it’s important to hear their side of the story) http://www.trafficgenerationcafe.com/myblogguest-open-letter-to-matt-cutts/

  • http://www.geneeugenio.com Gene Eugenio

    Link spam using guest posting is DEAD. Time to move on, folks. The next battle ground? ATTRACTING links instead of building them. Also, focus on value-driven sites instead of churn and burn thin affiliate sites. I know this is hard to take right now but we have to go the next level. Expert contributions with no followed links. Authority-based relationships are the key.

  • http://lexmrecruit.com/ Nandhini Lexm





    • Genda Dunmatta

      How can this guy get in here and post crap links? He’s not worried about a Google penalty. THIS is web spam, people.

    • sam

      i guess it is not a spam but really searching apt human resources for their company ….i too applied for a job from this site…

  • http://jakebohall.com Jacob “Jake” Bohall

    Maybe Google just wants you to stop linking to your own site with guest posts and start linking to your G+ profile for authorship… wouldn’t be the first time G+ was part of a link scheme (requiring link exchange to confirm profile and then later nofollowing the links out to participants)

  • http://goodlanddomains.com/ Clifford Petry

    No i do not think people should remove their links. If they wrote a guest post with all honesty,who cares what google thinks. We are the web, people. People keep it going with content. We should not be afraid of our beliefs and writing. This is how people came to this point here and now. Did google write it? No . We have to stand up for all issues on legit writing. Google is a search engine,that’s all. Have you thought about all the other search engines? They do not see it the way google does. Of course this is my understanding. Research your own beliefs. Honesty is the best policy. Stand up for your human right. Do not let machines control us. In closing look where we are right now!

  • Rebecca Nolen

    No, this is mass hysteria. Post your links. What does it matter that google is watching? Really?

    • http://goodlanddomains.com/ Clifford Petry

      Yes hit it right on the issue Rebecca Nolen!

  • http://www.shopprice.com.au/ Evana Iris

    Thank you for share your thinking, I’m going to work for a company that is http://www.shopprice.com.au so now should I skip guest posting or not?

  • http://www.shop.graciousstore.com/ Gracious Store

    Was Ann Smarty’s MyBlogGuest in anyway in violation of any of Google’s guidelines for Google to have penalized her blog or was Google simply penalizing guestblogs as a way to buttress the point Cutts made earlier in the year that guest blogging for SEO purposes should be considered dead?

  • http://www.fashionaccessoryshop.com Mary Laloli

    i am very new to internet marketing and find all this link building business rather overwhelming, Do this , do that, no don’t do this , don.t do that !!! what is the right thing to do and how do you tell if Google is penalizing you?

    Why is it so important anyway if it can be manipulated so easily. It is hard work to keep the blog comments going and other than Google who reads them? Why has Google become so powerful over the people who use the internet for business??

    Is there and easier way to recognized by Google? why in this day and age is it so hard?